CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Capuano v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Philip Capuano, a carpenter employed by Donaldson Acoustics, suffered a back injury on February 26, 2007, after slipping on a sprinkler pipe while installing sheetrock at a construction site owned by Yeshiva University. Capuano and his wife subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), specifically citing Industrial Code provisions regarding tripping hazards and inadequate illumination. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. Defendants appealed, questioning the existence of violations and Capuano's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, and defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact.

Labor LawConstruction Site AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentTripping HazardInadequate LightingIndustrial Code ViolationNondelegable DutyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ994369
Regular
Jan 19, 2014

JOSE JUAREZ vs. WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering a decision that awarded the applicant medical mileage and a penalty for unreasonable delay in compensation payments but denied attorney's fees. The WCAB believes attorney's fees are warranted under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the payment of awarded compensation. The case is being returned to the trial level for the judge to determine and award these attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Mileage Expense ReimbursementAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814.5Cumulative Industrial InjuryPulmonary System Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2005

Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Plaintiff, a laborer on the Triborough Bridge, fell from a form while attempting to descend and re-ascend it due to the absence of a mechanical manlift. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). A jury found the defendant liable under Labor Law § 200 and found violations of Industrial Code provisions under § 241 (6), but only one, regarding insufficient illumination (12 NYCRR 23-1.30), was found to be a proximate cause. The defendant moved to vacate these verdicts. The Supreme Court set aside the § 241 (6) finding but remanded for a new trial, and denied the motion regarding the § 200 claim. On appeal, the higher court reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support the illumination violation and that any jury charge errors became irrelevant. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of defendant's supervisory control over plaintiff's work or notice of the dangerous condition, thus dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against the defendant.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightLabor Law 200Labor Law 241 (6)CPLR 4404 (a)Jury VerdictProximate CauseSupervisory ControlNotice of Dangerous ConditionIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.30
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber

The dissenting opinion, authored by Staley, Jr., J., argues against the majority's conclusion that contributory negligence was not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) at the time of the accident. The dissent contends that subdivision 6 imposes a duty of reasonable care, not absolute liability, and therefore, contributory negligence should be a valid defense. It reviews legislative history and prior case law, emphasizing that the pre-1969 statute, identical in terms of liability definition to present subdivision 6, allowed contributory negligence as a defense. The dissent also clarifies a previous gratuitous statement by the court regarding contributory negligence in Frattura v Cozzolino Constr. Corp. The final judgment was modified, reversing the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) and the third-party complaint, ordering a new trial on those matters, and affirming the judgment as modified.

Contributory NegligenceLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityDuty of Reasonable CareConstruction SafetyExcavation WorkDemolition WorkSafe Place to WorkStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ2589823, ADJ3219675, and ADJ2540345
Regular
Jan 15, 2018

KIM RIVERS vs. AON CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior award. The Board found the defendant unreasonably delayed both permanent and temporary disability indemnity payments, warranting two separate $10,000 Labor Code section 5814 penalties. The applicant's counsel was awarded $6,000 in attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the prior award. Further penalties and fees for delays after the initial award were deferred.

Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStipulation and Awardpermanent disability indemnitytemporary disability indemnityunreasonably delayedattorney feesWCJ
References
1
Case No. VNO 113665 VNO 113666 VNO 113667 VNO 113668
Regular
Aug 06, 2007

MARIA A. GARCIA vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LIBRARY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a WCJ's award of penalties and attorney fees against the City of Los Angeles for delayed payment of home healthcare charges. The Board found that while payments were delayed, Labor Code section 5814(e) bars penalties when the only dispute concerns the payment of a provider's bill, not a denial of treatment. Furthermore, the Board found no basis to assess penalties under Labor Code section 5814.6 for a pattern of business practice violation.

Labor Code 5814Labor Code 5814.5Labor Code 5814.6unreasonable delayhome health carebilling disputemedical treatmentnursing servicespenaltyattorney fees
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2005

Portillo v. Roby Anne Development, LLC

The defendant, Rubyanne Development, LLC, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that Rubyanne failed to demonstrate the statute's inapplicability to a falling steel beam. However, the court reversed the decision regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, granting summary judgment to Rubyanne and dismissing that cause of action. This dismissal was based on the finding that the cited Industrial Code provision, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1), was not applicable as there was no evidence the plaintiff's injury occurred in an area normally exposed to falling objects. Furthermore, the court clarified that the Supreme Court had implicitly dismissed the common-law negligence claim by dismissing causes of action premised upon Labor Law § 200 due to the appellant's lack of supervision or control.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkFalling ObjectsStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03346 [205 AD3d 573]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

Lopez v. Halletts Astoria LLC

Plaintiff, an S&E employee, was injured at a construction site while fixing a misaligned hoist elevator when an adjacent ascending hoist elevator struck his foot. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and granted plaintiff summary judgment on those claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-6.1 (c) (1) and denied plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) (Industrial Code § 23-6.3 (g)) claims. The court found issues of fact regarding whether permitting concurrent hoist operation was a proximate cause of the injury and whether defendant New Line Structures & Development LLC had the authority to control the activity. The decision also affirmed the severance of the third-party action due to inexcusable delay.

Construction accidentHoist elevator injuryPersonal injuryLabor Law claimsIndustrial Code violationsProximate causeSummary judgmentThird-party liabilityAppellate reviewForeseeability of risk
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 8,574 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational